[tristor]

I value those things differently, because the bonus is only for the first two years, and the stock is a one-time grant. Just like there's 'no replacement for displacement' in engines, there's no replacement for base salary in compensation. What I'm seeing in that compensation package is no incentive whatsoever to stay after you finish your second year, and no real incentives to start in the first place. $150k in Seattle is not great in my mind anyway, that's roughly equivalent to $90k where I'm living right now, but the average base salary in this area is around $120k...

[boren_ave11]

Stock isn't a one-time thing.

RSUs are frequently given during annual performance reviews to employees with good reviews. For my first annual review I received a score of "Exceeds" which is second from the highest. For that, I got 35 RSUs worth roughly $19K when they vest (at current price).

In theory, good employees will continue to receive stock grants that vest over time, thus creating incentives to both stay and to perform well.

[serge2k]

Key words, when they vest.

I walked away with close to 100k on the table over the next 2 years because I couldn't stand the place anymore. Their golden handcuffs are awful.

[wde-sde]

I think I negotiated poorly and only ended up with about $97k total compensation in my first year, and by my third year it was about $120k.

The stock seemed like a mind-game to me, but it did work out to about 10% YoY increases in total compensation.

It's also inaccurate to characterize the stock as a one-time grant. The initial grant vests over four years (weighted on the last two years) typically you receive more grants after performance reviews, which vest over two years (again weighted on the second year.)

So in practice, you get a grant of 200 shares at signing, but by the end of year two only 50 have vested. At that point you have at least one performance grant, so you're probably getting shares vesting pretty regularly, at least four times a year.

[hullo]

Not an Amazonian, but everything I've ever read about their comp culture has said that stock is heavily valued/weighted, so there's a selection bias there in that anyone who's seriously considered them should know it going in and be alright with it.

[arcticfox]

Equivalent to $90k? Do you live in the US? The cost of living for most lifestyles is nowhere near $60k different between Seattle and anywhere in the US.

[sndean]

Using a random cost of living calculator (like this: http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-l...), it looks like many places aren't $60k different. But Atlanta, Dallas, Indianapolis, and lots of other cities are ~$50k different. Rural places are ~$60-70k different.

[arcticfox]

What number are you using?? For $150k, I see Atlanta, Dallas, etc. as $15-20k different, which seems correct.

[sndean]

Going from San Francisco to Dallas, using $150k gives me $81717.69.

Meaning the equivalent income to maintain your standard of living in Dallas is $81k, or ~70k less than San Francisco.

[tristor]

I'm in San Antonio, TX. The 7th largest city in the US, but it has one of the lowest costs of living of any major metro area. It's also home to several tech companies, including Rackspace, one of Amazon's primary competitors in the Cloud space.

[arcticfox]

The cost of living calculator posted by SNDean (http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-l...) calculates that 150k in Seattle is ~117k in San Antonio, so that's actually extremely close to the 120k you mentioned as standard.

[tristor]

This is the one I've always used for many years: "A salary of $150,000 in Seattle, Washington could decrease to $89,728 in San Antonio, Texas" (http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/seattle-wa/san-anto...) which is where I got my figures. Maybe they are incorrect, but my anecdotal experience in both San Antonio and Seattle makes them seem in line.